>>43385307> NarvaCool place I was there. Kind of funny to look at Russia from another country. And then at the other country from Russia. And annoy the border officers with crossing the border few times a day.

You may laugh but some strategists in the USA really think that Russia could attack Baltic States with all professional army it has (around 900k soldiers), while leaving all its other borders unprotected, because otherwise Russia couldn't be able to occupy these territories.

Don't worry Estonia, Poland will rescue you. Not many people know but Poland changed its defence strategy few months ago for the first time since 1945. We moved a lot of our troops and strongest units to the Eastern and Central part of Poland, to make them ready to make a fast blitzkrieg counterattack. According to old strategy from years 1999-2016, practically all Poland's army was located near German border to protect Germany in case of hipotetical attack, now the strategy changed radically. Now our defence is fast and massive attack, so if Baltic States are attacked by Russia, we will basically attack Kaliningrad and Belarus, while burning everything with bombs, rockets, tactical nukes and heavy artillery, along with Russian forces. We will stop on the Eastern border of Belarus, and - depending on Russian decision - the conflict will be escalated or not.

torn on the issue, a lot of eesti posters are butthurt /pol/ type shits and there's this particular annoying eesti /pol/ shitposter, who can go to gulag for all i care.but there used to be c&a eesti posters as well on /int/. also the baltics are rightful german clay :/

Fuck off, nazi. Gdańsk was always a Polish city, since ancient times. It is really a sad story that it had to be leveled to the ground, so our archeologists after 1945 could find evidence on the ancient Polish roots of this city.

Anglos are people of the sea, they think in category of balance of power. They always support the weak against the strong to create a proper balance of power in Eurasia to prevent some player (or group of players) to become too powerful, and prevent them from dominating whole continent.

That's why Anglos will always support CEE region against Germany and Russia, because CEE is weakest in this scheme of power, but at the same time they could support Russia against China, if Russia was smart enough to realize who is its real enemy.

>>43386868>, they will just take our oil shale and kill our culture and language

Wut? They actually created your culture. Before the USSR, no one ever heard of Estonians and your cities were German-speaking in majority. Russians expelled Germans, gave you Reval and Dorpat and let you rule in this republic.

>we already have all that and more,

What does Estonia produce? I know that in the Soviet era it produced electronic stuff, computers, technology used in space industry. What's left?

>>43386880You got from Russians way more than Estonians so don't even try to say anything.

Wrong, moron. Our decision about taking Zaolzie was a direct result of the Munich Agreement, not the other way round. Czechs gave up their country to Third Reich without fight with a support of the UK, France and Italy, so in fact Czechs, Brits, Frenchmen, Italians and of course Germans take full responsibility for our decision about Zaolzie. If we didn't take this part of territory, Poles living there would find themselves under German occupation, and we couldn't let it be. The Zaolzie was regained without even one shit fired and with full agreement of Czech government. Not even a single person died during the process. Meanwhile you fucking mongoloids signed a PACT RIBBENTROP-MOLOTOV dividing whole Eurasia on two spheres of influence: nazi one and soviet one. After attacking our country in a brutal way, while killing tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers, you began a campaign of terror that resulted in deportation of 1,2 mln Poles to Siberia and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

So stop rewriting history by comparing these two things, stupid russian pig.

>>43387398The UK is unable to defend anyone in continental Europe because your army practically doesn't exit. Back then during WW2 you had powerful navy at least (that was useless from our point of view anyway), today you buid aircraft carriers that catch a water.

>>43387399>But Soviet Russia signed a treaty acknowledging our independence, how can that be illegitimate? Or do you acknowledge that the word of a Russian is not worth the paper it is printed on? Estonia rejoined USSR in 1940 and signed the necessary papers. There even was no military action back then, so the case is clearer than 1918.

>Estonia rejoined USSR in 1940 and signed the necessary papers. There even was no military action back then, so the case is clearer than 1918.

Pic related is how that decision was made in our parliament. Does that really seem like unbiased decision-making by the legislative body of an independent state? And the guys standing in a line are Soviet soldiers btw, making sure that the MP's make the "correct" decision.

>>43387530Yes, if secession happening after literally war is OK, then accession happening with no war is even more OK. Also if you respect communist decisions about secession treaties, then respect it about rejoining treaties.

>>43387564Did they sign papers with Soviets or with Empire? Also if you respect communists, then respect their decisions. If you consider communists illegitimate, then it's time to return to 1914 borders.

Basically what happened is that Russia had something that belonged to us (independence), when we wanted to take it back they resisted and tried to fight us. We beat them in that fight and got our independence, with them admitting that they would never try to take it from us again.

Twenty years later, they show up with a huge group of friends and tell us to give it back to them or they will simply beat us up and take it away anyhow. Having no options, we give in.

This is not only completely legitimate and moral according to Russians, but they say we even actively wanted to give away our independence.

>>43387648>Basically what happened is that Russia had something that belonged to us (independence), when we wanted to take it back they resisted and tried to fight us. We beat them in that fight and got our independence, with them admitting that they would never try to take it from us again. Now please tell me about ancient Estonian Empire possessing said independence. Would be intredasting to hear.

>>43387606Neither>In the treaty, Bolshevik Russia ceded the Baltic States to Germany >Also if you respect communists, then respect their decisions I don't> If you consider communists illegitimate, then it's time to return to 1914 borders. Why? Did you find a rightful heir to the Tsardom?Otherwise why would the successor to a rebellious faction that killed the lawful ruler have any right to that ruler's land?

>>43387648> Basically what happened is that Russia had something that belonged to us (independence), when we wanted to take it back they resisted and tried to fight us. We beat them in that fight and got our independence, with them admitting that they would never try to take it from us again.tl;dr you stole clay from us using war as a tool for it.

>>43387595Why do you imagine I (or for that matter anyone) wants to talk with you. You enter with your rapid fire galore of shitposts with only nonsense and talking points designed for retaining vatnik retards in the flock. There is absolutely no value for normal people in talking with you.

>>43387677>>In the treaty, Bolshevik Russia ceded the Baltic States to Germany And later in a treaty it returned them and made soviet republics.>I don't Then I don't respect 1918 treaties with breakaway clay.>Why? Did you find a rightful heir to the Tsardom? Well, by now many soviet decisions are respected. But later when decommunization will happen, decisions about stealing clay will be reverted.

>>43387710>Why do you imagine I (or for that matter anyone) wants to talk with you. Because you do it just now. If after some discussion you get mad and transform it into tantrum - well, that's your problem.

>>43387766Now please tell me about that Estonian pre-1917 independence which you did not just "took", but even "took back">Are you seriously trying to say we "stole" the land that we had been living on for thousands of years before the Russian Empire conquered it? If your argument is "if some small piece of a country contains distinct people, and they want to get independence, they have full right to do so and territorial integrity should not be respected", then we can discuss it.

>>43387728>Well, by now many soviet decisions are respected. But later when decommunization will happen, decisions about stealing clay will be reverted. This has nothing to do with my question.The USSR of course had no right to any of the territory it held, it simply did so through force. The Russian Federation has no right to any of the Russian Empire's territory, but it did retain some control of the USSR's territory through agreement.

>>43387799It's just amazing how 300,000 nations were absorbed for 200 years by the largest nation in Europe and completely preserved their national self-identification, Russia is a true prison of nations.

>>43387849>The USSR of course had no right to any of the territory it held, it simply did so through force. The Russian Federation has no right to any of the Russian Empire's territory, but it did retain some control of the USSR's territory through agreement. And so did all other post-soviet or post-empire countries. If we'll get deeper that every country ever.

>>43387849>The Russian Federation has no right to any of the Russian Empire's territory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Provisional_Government

We had a republic with real elections before the red fanatics blew up the country

And Estonia, Finland, Poland, and other countries were part of this republic with this elected government

And the government chosen by the parliament did not sign any papers on independence

We're talking about a bunch of red fanatics who had no legitimacy for signing the independence of Finland, the Baltic and Poland. Russians on the Int make a big mistake defending the Soviet legacy, a real diplomatic victory is on the full destruction of the Soviet heritage.

Perhaps it would be more fitting to use "freedom" instead of "independence" here, but I wanted to refrain from it at first in order not to sound like a burger and you're probably just nitpicking here.

>If your argument is "if some small piece of a country contains distinct people, and they want to get independence, they have full right to do so and territorial integrity should not be respected", then we can discuss it.

My original point was that we did not "illegitimately secede" from Russia, since the Russian government recognized our independence. But basically it does indeed boil down to the right to self-determination, so we can of course discuss it.

>>43387989>The Russian Federation has declared itself to be the official successor of the USSR. So unless you view the Russian Federation as an illegitimate political formation as well, you're wrong. That's why we recognize if not Estonia belonging to us, then at least ESSR existence legitimacy. But if we'll consider full decommunization, then both ESSR and independent Estonia legitimacy will be put under question.

>>43387989>My original point was that we did not "illegitimately secede" from Russia, since the Russian government recognized our independence. Argument went basically>Independent Estonia is legitimate because it signed a treaty in 1918 >Then ESSR is legitimate because it signed treaty in 1940 >But it did it because of force! >1918 one was because of force too, even larger force because in 1918 war happened and in 1940 no war

>>43387989>The Russian Federation has declared itself to be the official successor of the USSR.

RF is not free and not legitimate country ruled by soviet political class and oppressing russian people, we will talk after the restoration of our independence from the international occupation which continues.

>>43387989>But basically it does indeed boil down to the right to self-determination, so we can of course discuss it. Ok then, we can theoretically accept full domination of self-determination over other principles. But then one shouldn't be upset if every tiny part of the country will want to become a country on its own.

>That's why we recognize if not Estonia belonging to us, then at least ESSR existence legitimacy. But if we'll consider full decommunization, then both ESSR and independent Estonia legitimacy will be put under question.

You would also basically put 100 years of your own history under question as well then. Or do you really believe that Russia will restore a monarchy and declare everything between then and 1918 to be illegitimate?

Is it really so hard to understand that "force" has no moral value of its own, but that it rather depends on how it's used?

Let's construct a very lifelike scenario so you could understand this:

>some bydlo steals your cellphone from you >you go and demand it back >he doesn't want to give it to you and attacks you >you fight back, beat him up and reclaim possession of your cellphone >some days later, he gangs up on you with his fellow gopniks and orders you to give him your cellphone or they will beat you up and take it >since you are vastly outnumbered, you give it to him

Is he now the rightful owner of your cellphone because no physical violence was used in the second encounter?

>>43385307I think with current situation the better question is if you would volunteer to fight for Eesti if niggers and arabs invaded ithint: they are doing it right nowEvery day you walk around you see more and more of those apes, if this pace continues i'd rather see russia invade us than continue with this EU bullshit

>>43388183>You would also basically put 100 years of your own history under question as well then. Or do you really believe that Russia will restore a monarchy and declare everything between then and 1918 to be illegitimate? You consider half-century of your history illegitimate because you find it beneficial. If it will turn beneficial for us to declare USSR fully or partially illegitimate, then why not do it? We'll say we were Empire all that time!But by now we are recognizing USSR decisions. Including 1940's clay accession decisions.

>>43388183>your scenario Here is a shorter scenario>some bydlo fights with you while you are ill and weak and steals your phone (1918 wars and clay loss) >later you get stronger >so you come to the bydlo and look at him threateningly (1940) >he understands everything and returns the phone >later he complains about threatening look but prefers to forget about fights before

The difference is that we never recognized the occupation as legitimate, whereas you have recognized the legitimacy of the USSR for over 25 years after its fall. It's gonna take a lot of mental gymnastics to simply go "no, forget about all that, the czar was right all along".

So you believe Estonia is an integral part of Russia and us gaining independence was an attack on your territorial sovereignty? By what divine right do we belong to you? And furthermore, even if you believe that, why do you care about it nowadays? After all, vatniks always assure us that Russia has nothing to gain from Estonia.

>>43388305>The difference is that we never recognized the occupation as legitimate I am quite sure that during all existence of ESSR it worked by Soviet laws and officially recognized own legitimacy. It changed after some time - but so can our recognition of soviet deeds if we'll find it beneficial.

>>43388305Can you show on graph in >>43387799 when you consider the "phone" belonging to "you">So you believe Estonia is an integral part of Russia and us gaining independence was an attack on your territorial sovereignty? Yes, it was an attack on territorial sovereignity by definition. Because once Estonia was a part of Russia (later USSR), and now it is not.>By what divine right do we belong to you? Ok, maybe ever piece of clay in the world should self-determine then.>And furthermore, even if you believe that, why do you care about it nowadays? After all, vatniks always assure us that Russia has nothing to gain from Estonia. Some want to grab full Estonia, some want to grab Russian-populated parts, some don't want to grab clay, but definitely don't want to be accused in "occupation". Also there are other clay questions beside Estonia, so we can make analogues (Crimea and Donbass for example).

>I am quite sure that during all existence of ESSR it worked by Soviet laws and officially recognized own legitimacy. It changed after some time - but so can our recognition of soviet deeds if we'll find it beneficial.

Of course the ESSR worked by Soviet laws, but those were imposed illegitimately. During the whole occupation, we had a working government in exile, as well as a president in exile. Do you have some kind of a czar in exile that has carried on the continuity of the Russian Empire?

>>43388534You declared 50 years of your existence illegitimate, right? That does not mean you destroyed everything built in ESSR. Instead you took things you considered good, and declared some stuff illegitimate when it suited you.

>Can you show on graph in >>43387799 when you consider the "phone" belonging to "you"

Yes, it's at the very beginning, but only a small part of it can be seen on that graph. From Wikipedia:

> it is often maintained that speakers of early Uralic languages related to modern Estonian had arrived in what is now Estonia by about 5,000 years ago. >Living in the same area for more than 5,000 years would put the ancestors of Estonians among the oldest permanent inhabitants in Europe.

>Yes, it was an attack on territorial sovereignity by definition. Because once Estonia was a part of Russia (later USSR), and now it is not.

Was it an attack on the territorial integrity of Sweden when you conquered these lands from them in 1710? Do you think that the political map of the world was "finished" in 1917 and no further changes were necessary?

>Ok, maybe ever piece of clay in the world should self-determine then.

I had the feeling we were talking about nations, not simply pieces of land. Why does it seem that Russians think that land of itself has some intrinsic value? I mean sure, you need land for a country to exist, but simply adding more land to it won't always make it wealthier. Case in point: Russia, the largest country in the world.

>Some want to grab full Estonia, some want to grab Russian-populated parts, some don't want to grab clay, but definitely don't want to be accused in "occupation". Also there are other clay questions beside Estonia, so we can make analogues (Crimea and Donbass for example).

>>43388534>During the whole occupation, we had a working government in exile, as well as a president in exile. Do you have some kind of a czar in exile that has carried on the continuity of the Russian Empire? That's technicalities. For example there are some people which claim pre-WWI Germany still legitimate, but they will succeed only if some powerful force will support them. Same with government-in-exiles- they succeed if country hosting them succeeds.About us: we can indeed declare Empire legitimate. Or we can declare 1917 republic legitimate and the rest with all clay loss illegitimate. Whatever will be benefical for us should happen.

>>43388664>Yes, it's at the very beginning Talking about states and then linking to some ancient tribes isn't a sound argument. If for example Neanderhtals lived there before, it says nothing about current Neanderthalia legitimacy.

>>43388664>Was it an attack on the territorial integrity of Sweden when you conquered these lands from them in 1710? Do you think that the political map of the world was "finished" in 1917 and no further changes were necessary? Guess you can say it about every war. About it being finished in 1917 -p orbably it was not finished in 1917, was not finished in 1940 and isn't finished now.>I had the feeling we were talking about nations, not simply pieces of land. Some parts of Empire were populated by Estonians, some parts of Estonia are populated by Russians. Pieces of land usually contain some nation on them.>But why? What do Russians stand to gain from this? Gain from clay? Some consider it valuable (or rightfully Russian).Gain from Russian-populated clay? Some consider them abused or having the right to self-determination.Gain from ending occupation talks? Some consider such claims as insulting and threatening to us.

>You declared 50 years of your existence illegitimate, right? That does not mean you destroyed everything built in ESSR. Instead you took things you considered good, and declared some stuff illegitimate when it suited you.

We declared the occupation to be illegitimate, not our existence. The Estonian government continued its existence in exile and reclaimed control of the country in 1991.

Going by your logic, who would be the legitimate ruler of Russia at the moment? Or do you think that Russians are unfit to govern themselves and the land should be split up among its neighbors or something?

>That's technicalities. For example there are some people which claim pre-WWI Germany still legitimate, but they will succeed only if some powerful force will support them.

What people? I haven't ever heard of this and I doubt this movement has any chance of success. One can claim all sorts of things, Mongolia could also technically claim most of Russia, but that's obviously not going to happen.

>About us: we can indeed declare Empire legitimate. Or we can declare 1917 republic legitimate and the rest with all clay loss illegitimate. Whatever will be benefical for us should happen.

How can you do that when there is no continuity? There has been no one to carry on those governments, the link to them is long-gone. It would be like taking a random stick and lighting it from a match and calling it the Olympic fire.

>>43388756>We declared the occupation to be illegitimate, not our existence. The Estonian government continued its existence in exile and reclaimed control of the country in 1991. We can do the same: declare USSR illegitimate without destroying good Soviet stuff, but cancelling bad communist decisions.>Going by your logic, who would be the legitimate ruler of Russia at the moment? Or do you think that Russians are unfit to govern themselves and the land should be split up among its neighbors or something? There are a lot of possibilities. For example, make some Romanov figurehead monarch. Or declare 1917 republic legitimate and redo some form of Constituent Assembly. Government can also stay mostly the same - after all Estonians are ruled mostly by people born in ESSR.

>What people? I haven't ever heard of this and I doubt this movement has any chance of success. One can claim all sorts of things, Mongolia could also technically claim most of Russia, but that's obviously not going to happen. Yes, that's why such claims can succeed only due to a power. Estonia 1918 independence succeeded due to war. 1940 accession succeeded due to USSR gaining power. 1991 succeeded due to Cold War end. Reaccession of Estonia (or some part of Estonia) may happen due to strong Russia nearby (happened with Ukraine).>How can you do that when there is no continuity? There has been no one to carry on those governments, the link to them is long-gone. It would be like taking a random stick and lighting it from a match and calling it the Olympic fire. If you managed to claim that you are rightful successor to first republic and 50 years of ESSR don't count, then we can do it too.

>Guess you can say it about every war. About it being finished in 1917 -p orbably it was not finished in 1917, was not finished in 1940 and isn't finished now.

If you agree to that logic, then I can admit that politics ultimately comes down to who has the most power. You took the land from Sweden in 1710 because you were more powerful, we gained independence in 1918 because we were more powerful and you conquered us in 1940 because you were more powerful again. But if you agree to such a power-based worldview, it is very deceptive to try to coat it in some high and mighty "righteous" rhetoric.

>Some parts of Empire were populated by Estonians, some parts of Estonia are populated by Russians. Pieces of land usually contain some nation on them.

The difference being that some nations already have a state of their own and some don't.

>Gain from clay? Some consider it valuable (or rightfully Russian).

Who are these "some"? All I hear from the Russian side is that we produce nothing of value here and Russia has enough land as it is, so we have nothing to be paranoid about and should simply leave NATO.

>Gain from Russian-populated clay? Some consider them abused or having the right to self-determination.

But you see, they have the option of going to their homeland if they feel abused or want self-determination. They already have a country, Estonians in 1918 didn't.

>Gain from ending occupation talks? Some consider such claims as insulting and threatening to us.

Well you can't really deny that we were occupied and it's not like this topic is frequently talked about in Estonia that you should consider it insulting. Maybe it's often topical in Russian media though, I wouldn't know. And how exactly can it be considered threatening?

Even if "we" will invade it, they'll pretty much just suck and it and choose to wait it out and other countries will sit beside and express concerns. Volunteers or "volunteers" will be killed bretty quickly without support.

Estonia tho is even less important than Cockhlaine, that gives virtually no reason to do anything with it.

>We can do the same: declare USSR illegitimate without destroying good Soviet stuff, but cancelling bad communist decisions.

But then you would also have to declare that the Russian Federation has illegitimately recognized the USSR for over 25 years for some reason.

>There are a lot of possibilities. For example, make some Romanov figurehead monarch. Or declare 1917 republic legitimate and redo some form of Constituent Assembly. Government can also stay mostly the same - after all Estonians are ruled mostly by people born in ESSR.

Are there even any capable people alive that belong to the Romanov lineage? And the 1917 republic was also the result of a revolution, can they be considered legitimate if you say the communists were not?

>Yes, that's why such claims can succeed only due to a power. Estonia 1918 independence succeeded due to war. 1940 accession succeeded due to USSR gaining power. 1991 succeeded due to Cold War end. Reaccession of Estonia (or some part of Estonia) may happen due to strong Russia nearby (happened with Ukraine).

Yes, no arguing here. Ultimately, whoever has power does what he wants and uses whatever arguments are convenient for him to justify his actions. But that is somewhat out of the scope of this discussion.

>If you managed to claim that you are rightful successor to first republic and 50 years of ESSR don't count, then we can do it too.

But you see, we had always been saying that the ESSR was illegitimate. You would have to create this argument pretty much out of thin air and then spread it to the masses, who probably wouldn't want the last 100 years to be declared null and void.

>That is russian tier barbarian logic, my congratulations, you recognized that the holy Europeans-altantists are don't care about law when it is beneficial to them.

That is simply how life is. The West tries to keep to the laws a bit more than others, but that might be either because it doesn't need to use warfare when it can use other means or because we simply don't know about all their wrongdoings.

Don't pretend that every single country doesn't operate like this, Russia more so than most others.

>>43388837>If you agree to that logic, then I can admit that politics ultimately comes down to who has the most power. You took the land from Sweden in 1710 because you were more powerful, we gained independence in 1918 because we were more powerful and you conquered us in 1940 because you were more powerful again. But if you agree to such a power-based worldview, it is very deceptive to try to coat it in some high and mighty "righteous" rhetoric. Yes, the alternative, is to sign treaties and if you sign it, don't try to declare them bad later. Just as you did with 1940 treaty. But if you can do it with 1940, we can do it with 1918.>The difference being that some nations already have a state of their own and some don't. If we will give your Saremaa island for True 100% Pure Estonian Nation State but annex the rest of Estonia, would you be pleased? You will still have nation state then.>Who are these "some"? All I hear from the Russian side is that we produce nothing of value here and Russia has enough land as it is, so we have nothing to be paranoid about and should simply leave NATO. That's hardly a consensus. Also if you consider Russian-populated parts as money drain and political instability source, why not free them?>But you see, they have the option of going to their homeland if they feel abused or want self-determination. They already have a country, Estonians in 1918 didn't. Look at Saaremaa argument. Also such a threats may end like Crimean case did.>Well you can't really deny that we were occupied and it's not like this topic is frequently talked about in Estonia that you should consider it insulting. Maybe it's often topical in Russian media though, I wouldn't know. And how exactly can it be considered threatening? Because, again, if you consider 1940 illegitimate to gain political bonuses, then we can do the same with 1918. Otherwise try not to be hostile.

>>43388974>>43388978The statehood of Russia was based on Tsar and mutual agreements between the provinces over which he ruled and him - that's called monarchy. When the Tsar was murdered by the bolsheviks - Russian state ceased to exist as well as obligations of Estonia to keep loyalty to it.

The treaty itself by which Russia recognized our independence was signed in 1920, long after the Provisional Government was dissolved. And we were at war with specifically with the communists, not with Russia in general, because it was the Red Army that invaded us when we declared independence. We actually fought on the same side as some of the White forces who tried to defeat communism.

It's pretty sad, really, since Estonians and Russians got along very well before the commies took over Russia. We didn't even originally plan to declare ourselves independent, we only wanted to be more autonomous like Finland, but history went otherwise.

>>43388972>But then you would also have to declare that the Russian Federation has illegitimately recognized the USSR for over 25 years for some reason. Yes, for some reason. If necessary, it will be of no problem to find a sufficient excuse.>Are there even any capable people alive that belong to the Romanov lineage? And the 1917 republic was also the result of a revolution, can they be considered legitimate if you say the communists were not? There is still Romanov House and it still has official heir.If results of revolution are illegitimate, then so is Estonian independence because it was a result of said revolution.>But you see, we had always been saying that the ESSR was illegitimate. No, during 50 years of your existence you officially considered ESSR legitimate and lived by its laws. You had some groups abroad claiming otherwise, but as shown before, there are myriad of different groups claiming things and they succeed only due to power supporting them.

Provisional Committee of the State Duma (Russian: Временный Комитет Государственной Думы) was a special government body established on March 12, 1917 (27 February O.S.) by the Fourth State Duma deputies at the outbreak of the Russian February Revolution.

This was the only legitimate power chosen by the Russian people on fair elections

I did not see their signature on Estonian independence, this is a one-sided separatism

sames about cockholes, mambets and eblorussians

Nobody cares about the signature of the insane syphilitic who arrived from Switzerland and shot 300,000 peaceful people in Petrograd and his criminal gang.

>Yes, the alternative, is to sign treaties and if you sign it, don't try to declare them bad later. Just as you did with 1940 treaty. But if you can do it with 1940, we can do it with 1918.

But my point is that the government that signed the treaty in 1940 was not the legitimate government in Estonia. The Soviets took over power, dissolved our state institutions and then had mock elections in 1940, where each district only had one candidate and the only party allowed was the communist party. Others who tried to set up their candidacy were either revoked or even assassinated. The government that was then formed after these elections instantly decided to join the USSR. It's not like Estonians took over Russia and then established a puppet-government in 1918.

>If we will give your Saremaa island for True 100% Pure Estonian Nation State but annex the rest of Estonia, would you be pleased? You will still have nation state then.

Seriously you can't be comparing the island of Saaremaa to the whole of Russia, the largest country in the world?

>That's hardly a consensus. Also if you consider Russian-populated parts as money drain and political instability source, why not free them?

Well, it's pretty hard to see what the actual consensus on this matter is and I've never said the Russian-populated parts are a money drain. If they feel that they need to be "freed", then what's holding them here? Some time ago we even had a program that Russians going back to Russia received money from both the Estonian as well as the Russian state and a free apartment in Russia. A few dozen people used this option, at the most.

>Look at Saaremaa argument. Also such a threats may end like Crimean case did.

Look at my previous answer. Also, where's the threat here? Furthermore, the Russians that arrived here during the occupation should all have been sent back in 1991, since it was illegal for the Soviet Union as on occupying power to bring people into occupied territories. This is stated in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the Soviet Union signed in 1960.

>Because, again, if you consider 1940 illegitimate to gain political bonuses, then we can do the same with 1918. Otherwise try not to be hostile.

Look above why 1940 is illegitimate and 1918 not. And how are we hostile? The only thing we want is to live in peace, but at times it seems like that is too much to ask for.

>Yes, for some reason. If necessary, it will be of no problem to find a sufficient excuse.

Well, I'd like to see how you market that excuse to the masses.

>There is still Romanov House and it still has official heir.

But do they still claim to be the rightful ruler of the Russian Empire?

>If results of revolution are illegitimate, then so is Estonian independence because it was a result of said revolution.

I'm not saying that the results of revolutions are illegitimate, you said that and I simply expanded on your idea. Why would you think that the results of revolutions are more legitimate than the results of wars for example? After all, Russia conquered the Estonian areas by war when it infringed on the territorial integrity of Sweden.

>No, during 50 years of your existence you officially considered ESSR legitimate and lived by its laws. You had some groups abroad claiming otherwise, but as shown before, there are myriad of different groups claiming things and they succeed only due to power supporting them.

Not exactly, since we literally had about 100 000 Soviet troops stationed here to make sure that we don't rebel against the Soviet Union and try to restore our own state. Are you trying to imply that Russia is also currently occupied by the Russian Army, suppressing the legitimate will of the Russian people?